As the Flame of Catholic Dissent Dies Out

By

Charlotte Allen

Updated Jan. 14, 2010 10:30 p.m. ET

Mary Daly, a retired professor at Boston College who was probably the most outré of all the dissident theologians who came to the fore of Catholic intellectual life in the years right after the Second Vatican Council, died on Jan. 3 at age 81. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, which might be called the golden age of Catholic dissidence, theologians who took positions challenging traditional church teachings—ranging from the authority of the pope to bans on birth control, premarital sex, and women's ordination—dominated Catholic intellectual life in America and Europe. They seemed to represent a tide that would overwhelm the old restrictions and their hidebound adherents.

Now, 45 years after Vatican II concluded in 1965, most of those bright lights of dissident Catholicism—from the theologian Hans Küng of the University of Tübingen to Charles Curran, the priest dismissed from the Catholic University of America's theology faculty in 1987 for his advocacy of contraception and acceptance of homosexual relationships—seem dimmed with advanced age, if not extinguished. They have left no coherent second generation of dissident Catholic intellectuals to follow them.

Prof. Daly certainly pushed the envelope. In 1968, she published "The Church and the Second Sex," a book that accused the Catholic Church of oppressing and "humiliating" women by excluding them from its "patriarchal" hierarchy. The title of her most famous work, "Beyond God the Father" (1973), is self-explanatory. At some point afterward, Prof. Daly, despite being raised Catholic and earning degrees in theology and literature from three different Catholic colleges plus the University of Fribourg, left the church to embrace ever more belligerent brands of feminism.

She got into trouble with Boston College, the Jesuit institution where she had taught since 1966, for barring men from her advanced classes in women's studies. In the wake of a sex-discrimination complaint launched by a male student, Prof. Daly and her employer engaged in a round of litigation during the late 1990s that culminated in her voluntary retirement in 2001. She spent her last years promoting vegetarianism, antifur activism, a protest of Condoleezza Rice's 2006 commencement speech at Boston College, and the coining of male-baiting neologisms (an example: "mister-ectomy").

The trajectory of her life story is not unusual among Catholic dissidents. The Young Turk of Vatican II—and pet of the progressive Catholic media of the time—was Hans Küng. A Swiss-born, movie-star-handsome priest whom Pope John XXIII had made a peritus, or theological adviser, to the council, Father Küng swept through a tour of U.S. Catholic universities to accolades in 1963. And his 1971 book questioning papal infallibility—which got him stripped of his license to teach Catholic theology in 1979—turned him into a living martyr among progressives. He is still at Tübingen (last heard from in October blasting Pope Benedict XVI's overtures to conservative Anglicans as "angling in the waters of the extreme religious right"), but he's 81.

The Belgian Dominican priest Edward Schillebeeckx, who had worked unsuccessfully to persuade the assembled bishops of the Second Vatican Council to downgrade the authority of the pope—and who was condemned in 1986 for holding that there was no biblical support for the ordaining of Catholic priests—died in December at age 95. The Rev. Charles Curran, who was a controversial figure at Catholic University as early as 1967, when he was temporarily removed from his tenured position over his views on birth control, and who moved to Southern Methodist University after his final dismissal from Catholic two decades later, is now 75.

Another prominent figure in liberal Catholic intellectual circles is Sister Sandra M. Schneiders, who is famous for her assertions that Jesus was a feminist and that God should be referred to as "she" as well as "he," as well as for her advice that progressive orders of nuns treat representatives of a planned Vatican investigation like "uninvited guests." She is also past retirement age and is listed as "professor emerita" at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley, Calif.

So where is the second generation of brilliant progressive Catholic theologians? There are plenty of liberal lay Catholics. The church's ban on artificial birth control is nearly a dead letter, a majority of Catholics say they believe their church should ordain women, and 40% have no moral objections to abortion, according to a 2009 Gallup poll. But dissident Catholicism seems to have lost steam as an intellectual movement, and not only because the issues relating to sex and papal authority that originally sparked Catholic dissidents have not changed in nearly 50 years.

The first-generation dissidents were products of a strong and confident traditional Catholic culture against which they rebelled, one whose intellectual standards grounded them in the faith they later came to question. Sister Schneiders, for example, earned four degrees from Catholic institutions, including the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. Yet most Catholics of her generation have not passed on the tenets of their faith to their children—the offspring of the Vatican II generation tend either to be churchless or not to go to church—or, in the case of academics, to their students. It's hard to rebel when you don't even know what you are rebelling against.

Not that conservative Catholicism is in any better straits; it's a vibrant but niche branch of the religion, and its leading intellectuals—Robert George, Mary Ann Glendon—aren't theologians. But it is fair to note that when Prof. Daly died, she left behind no young Mary Dalys to continue waging her quixotic war against the faith that shaped her, whether she liked it or not.

Ms. Allen is a contributing editor of the Manhattan Institute's Minding the Campus Web site.

To summarize many of the posts that have come before: "Think of it as evolution in action."And check out the number of teenagers at the March For Life in Washington.There is hope for this nation, eventually.

I guess I never thought of Schillebeeckx as a dissenter. More an historical critical theologian. As far as Pope Benedict and other regressive figures like Archbishop Raymond Burke are concerned, I find them more like museum pieces: colorful, sometimes interesting but mostly boring and rather useless as guides for contemporary believers.

There are two churches today. The church of progressives and the true church.

Progressives fell into the logical trap of saying the bible is one big myth - make believe!So as any person would ask "if it is all make believe why believe?"So most who learned that Adam and Eve, Moses, King David, Mary the Virgin, Jesus were make believe decided to leave the church. If you are a priest or Bishop then you are on welfare for life and must keep up teaching the progressive tripe.Otherwise, you have struggled to find the truth and found it in Thomas Aquinas or other great pious writers. And every Sunday, one tunes out the 1960's sermons on "Make love not war", "Tune out and drop out", etc.. Some day and it may be coming that a real priest will speak the truth again. But in the mean time, amazon.com has become the best place to find the catholic religion.

I am 33 years old and this statement is very true: "The children of the “liberal” Catholics don’t read liberal Catholic media for the simple reason they are no longer Catholic."

I have a JD from a Jesuit institution where I met my fiance, we will raise our children Catholic and send them to Catholic schools. Both of us are conservative and strongly believe in the family vales of the RC church.

Micah, I'm impressed. There may be room in the church for us both. I especially liked your Francis Gray quotation- which sums up what I always thought about Catholicism- It's not easy, but it's not impossible.

I don't read Latin. But when I try to I want to read Horace and Lucretius. I think you'd gain from reading them. In return I'll try to read anything in Latin you recommend.....

"a majority of Catholics say they believe their church should ordain women, and 40% have no moral objections to abortion, according to a 2009 Gallup poll"

Well that nicely sums up the bias in the author's fundamental beliefs, and those of whom she speaks.

It is impossible for something to be and not be at the same time. So it is with those who call themselves "Catholic" but believe, and fight, contrary to the Catholic Faith.

Many people have been, and are still, being deeply hurt by these people's worship of themselves. Sadly this includes many priest and non-ordained religious.

I believe the passing of people like Mary Daly is a very good thing for the Catholic Church and the world. Though I pray for her and all those who are of similar error. I think they may need it more than we yet know.

Charlotte Allen missed the forest for the theological trees in her January 14, 2010 article “As the Flame of Catholic Dissent Dies Out.” In her search for a successor to feminist theologian and philosopher Mary Daly, she passed over the fact that, thanks to Dr. Daly, religion is widely regarded as a gendered activity. Thousands of scholars and students worldwide grapple with the complexities of historical and contemporary ways in which sexism has played a role in shaping beliefs and practices. This is no longer a matter of opinion—though many like Ms. Allen reject feminist findings—but part of the state of the question. Even the Vatican heralds “Christian feminism” in its documents. Encouraging people to think for themselves and not cloning ourselves is the goal most scholars share with Mary Daly.

Likewise, the age of theological scholars has never been a barrier to important work. Charles Curran continues his prolific writing at Southern Methodist University and Sandra Schneiders recently published a five-part series on women in religious communities that is the talk of the theological town. Like good wines, theologians seem to gain depth and richness as we get older.

I appreciate your writing the article on Dr. Mary Daly. However, you being a journalist requires that you obtain good information and reliable sources, in order to reduce margin of inaccurate reporting. Ms. Allen, I am sorry to report but your work is incomplete and you have not done your due diligence.

I would like for you to know that Dr. Mary Daly leaves behind a legacy that goes without saying. Thousands of people, both women and men (including you), ought to be grateful to Dr. Mary Daly for her radical courage to speak against the church and societal hegemony. It takes a heart of great passion, love, audacity, like that of Dr. Mary Daly, to see what’s wrong with the system, speak against it, and for change to come about.

The “second generation” of Mary Dalys are plentiful, but they don’t always make the evening news or the WSJ. I may not be a Catholic, but I am a descendent of the Catholic Church. After all, most if not all Christian denominations today are direct and/or indirect derivatives of the Catholic Church.

Ms. Allen, I suggest that you gather more in depth information for your next article. But then again, it is the Opinion’s column!

When was the last time you lot were in an RC church for goodness sake? They're empty. They pray for vocations virtually every week. I remember one particularly grim occasion when I was the only individual in the congregation who wasn't clearly ineligble for the priesthood- the rest being female, or elderly, or both, or trying to ignore their fidgeting children and wives.

No priests. So there's little 'intellectual' life in the church. And two conservative popes in a row haven't helped matters. It'll take more than John Paul's inflationary approach to canonisation and the miracle of Padre Pio's uncorrupted body to fill the pews. Benedict could start by excommunicating the bishop who decided to excommunicate the mother and doctor of the 9 year old who was raped and had abortion.

The simple reality that Ms Daly was so "outré" that she wasn't Catholic at all appears to have escaped Charlotte Allen's attention. The same with the other so-called Catholic dissidents who finally realized that they had no place in a Church that no longer heeded their calls to rebel against authority. Sorry, but God bless and good riddance!

In her last paragraph, it seems Ms. Allen has found it too easy to point out the less significant heroes of "conservative" Catholicism. I myself have a degree in theology and am proud to call myself one of those young, orthodox Catholics who belongs to the "JPII" generation. Our heroes tend to include much bigger names: Pope Benedict XVI has rather heroically defended the faith of the Church and the importance of spiritual matters by reaching out to people of many viewpoints (not only in attempts to reconcile the SSPX with the Church, but even in a recent positive reference to one of the progressives Ms. Allen didn't reference: Pierre Tielhard de Chardin). His motu proprio was hailed instantly by many Catholic intellectuals of my generation as a brilliant stroke. Further, Ms. Allen forgets popular living theologians who have been practically raised to the altars by conservative Catholics: Scott Hahn, Edward Sri, Janet Smith, and Bishops Burke, Rigali, Bruskewitz, Olmstead, Vasa, and the recently installed bishop of New York, Timothy Dolan. Far from Ms. Allen's viewpoint, conservative Catholics are growing in strength and numbers through various faithful lay organizations and diocesan initiatives. Institutions such as Benedictine College, Franciscan University of Steubenville, Christendom College, and Ave Maria University are training young minds in fidelity to the Church and to Jesus Christ in what we hope will be the systematic evangelization of the country. Furthermore, aside from making converts, we also tend to out-reproduce liberal Catholics. I think it would do the Journal well to contact an editorialist who would be willing to expound on those numbers.

I am always incredulous when I see how many people in the Western emisphere with a brain in the head and a head on their shoulder adhere mindlessly and blindly to religion. Religion is not faith. Religion is about power, of men over women, of some people over others, "My God is better then yours". . Something which was very clear in the minds and hearts of the past generation of dissidents, who struggled to make Catholicism, with its horrors, stay away from the abyss. If it was not for people like them, we may be the ones blowing up ourselves in airports. I would also list among them Anthony de Mello, a spiritual Jesuit whose teachings could enlighten anyone and who was on the verge of being cut of from the Church (was he eventually ? I can not remember) and who has inspired millions of people. Surely people who do not agree with Catholic most stubborn incapacity for change can leave. But as any grown up child who has pains leaving his or her parents, I could understand he or she would put up a fight first to see if dialogue is still possible even once he or she is an adult, or if the same "little child/parents "rule will have to be the only code of communication. In the end, she will leave if she must in order to keep growing A true parent, will allow and support that.

I thought this foolish abandon was only a prerogative of some people in poorer and more scared countries. Where women can not even be looked at. But no, clearly fear of The Evil has inspired a new wave of radicalsm among other religious groups as well. No religion has the Truth. "In war, each enemy prays its own God for victory". How sad is that.

I salute Mary Daly; her intellectual integrity, stregth and clarity, without wich great damages can be done by any religion, will be sorely missed.

If you are wondering where progressive, socially and environmentally conscious, well-educated Catholics are, take a look at Call to Action's NextGeneration movement. Most of us hold at least one degree in theology (I hold two degrees in Catholic theology-each from prominent Catholic universities, and I also have a second master's in social work). We are committed to justice and equality in both our Church and the world. Our faith is our guiding force in all that we do, and pray is vital to our work.

Our lives, however, often look quite differently than the many progressive Catholic theologians of earlier generations because we have chosen to live and act in a different way. Instead of writing academic books and articles for a small segment of the Church and world, we live our lives as progressive Catholics and live a new church in all that we do and in who we are. We share our thoughts and opinions in personal communication and write for different venues (i.e. http://youngadultcatholics-blog.com/ and http://ncronline.org/blogs/young-voices). Many of us choose not to stay within the limits of the academy and instead minister in different ways as social workers, chaplains, psychotherapists, community organizers, and teachers. This year's Call to Action conference will explore the very issue of Catholicism across Generations. In no way has the progressive Catholic flame died out---it is spreading like wildfire!

Whew, well, first of all, rest in peace Mary Daly. Person first. I think this article, at least its focus, is too soon.

I don't agree with all things Mary Daly, but I certainly think she shared a great wealth of Catholic values. The author cites all of the Catholic education Mary and others have (Some could say that the universities they went to weren't Catholic 'enough' but come on, Sandra Schneiders has a doctorate from the Gregorian Institute for Pete's sake) and I just don't think it is possible that they pursued that much Catholic education purely to undermine it; people with differing views are not as diabolical as people would like to make them out to be but humans so often demonize 'the other'. I have an extensive Catholic education and the teachings have SHAPED me into the liberal I am proud to be today. It is because of Church teaching, not because I'm rebelling or rejecting them, that I am who I am today. There are so many facets of our faith; this is why I try to respect all perspectives in Catholicism, because I think they are all a part of the tradition as difficult as that may be to hold them all in tension.

There are some that would say so called 'orthodox' Catholics are dissident because they don't follow all Church teaching. None of us do. Take for instance that over 80% of Catholics believe in the death penalty, something very contrary to Catholic teaching, and only to be considered in VERY rare cases. I don't say this to engage that whole debate, or judge lest I be judged. It is an example however, of conservative 'dissent'. I think it would go a long way for everyone, whatever their perspective on things, to realize that they come from a certain frame of reference, see through a certain lens. This isnt bad or good, just is.

One of the greatest contributions Feminists like Mary Daly passed onto us was being able to live the in the values of feminism while Mary's life's work was about fighting for them. I benefit now from being able to live in an almost post-feminism world (I'm 30) where so many of the values are in place, and I can celebrate people just being people-for me, one of the values of feminism is about the freedom of all (men and women) to be who they are and be that very well. Its a privilege to work from there and not have to fight so much.

Even the situation about her banning males from her classroom-men and women both need safe space sometimes and women are new at asking for it, so Mary made it happen. No sexism is ok, but it does ruffle my feathers when a male cries sexism for some minor or fleeting moment when women and other oppressed people, have endured so much for so long. Those on the end of oppression know too well how difficult it is to endure comments from others that are so hurtful, and believe me, people say some majorly hurtful things even when they aren't meaning to. Ignorance can hurt too, and I wouldnt expect someone to put themselves in the fire while they are trying to build themselves up.

There is room in the Church for as many people share in the humanity Christ assumed, so long as they truly strive to live out in hope and charity the faith of Christ entrusted to the Church. I like to explain salvation to people in this way: it is not just getting us into heaven, it is about getting heaven into us. Salvation, the goal of our living the faith, must transform us into the saints we are called to be (which is really the fullest version of ourselves), and that includes being challenged to reconcile ourselves to the Truth.

I've read only a small bit of Horace. I've read considerably more of Lucretius, although in English. As long as you don't want me to read Martial (who, I quickly learned, is a terrible pervert), I could take up your suggestion, but it would have to wait for summer. Out of all my readings, I'd recommend the Aeneid or the letters of St. Francis (who was not fluent in Latin, but is nonetheless profound, and very surprisingly not the hippie he is usually characterized as).

There is an older sister at my church, who God bless her, must be about my grandmother's age. When she talks about Vatican II and the church, she speaks as if everything is our own opinion, and all we can really know is that God loves us.

Your comment makes me wonder whether liberals have unknowingly cut themselves off from the intellectual life of the church. After all, if morality is merely a matter of opinion, then there is nothing more to be said on the matter.

One of JP2's many gifts to the youth is a desire to know and understand our faith. In many ways, this is a fulfillment of Vatican II. Morality is not just a set of rules, but a deeper understanding of our faith and the human person. The intellectual life of the Church belongs to us all.

For many reasons, I think your generation does not understand mine. (I'm assuming that you're over 50...apologies if this is incorrect) Take for instance, the church's message of abstinence. My generation has grown up in a culture that tends to objectify women. We've seen the cost that our friends have borne in low self-esteem, eating disorders, and abusive boyfriends. Against this setting, Theology of the Body is a transforming message. It isn't just a statement of "no", but an invitation to recognize that God made the human person.

James, for whatever reason, I didn't see your comment on NFP before. I think it would be unfair to mischaracterize NFP as the rhythm method, which is based on a perfectly regular cycle. NFP involves much more advanced techniques which are considerably more effective if the couple actually uses it properly.

As for the equality of women, I think it is a mistake that some women feel the need to be exactly like men and to have the same purpose as men. What message does it really send about the dignity of women when a mother says to her daughter, "you see that thing Billy is able to do? You won't be equal until you can do what every man can do." Authentic feminism should send the message that women are equal to men but also complementary with their own purposes and natural abilities. To say that women practically and functionally have to be men in order to claim their dignity seems to do more damage to feminine dignity than to acknowledge a difference in vocation. As for women's ordination, the Church is clear and her teachings make sense: Christ, who was never known as a person to follow the social patterns of His time, did not choose any women as apostles, even His Mother. The Church, likewise never in-line with the secular culture of any time, has upheld this choice throughout her 2000 year history. Women are equal to men, but very different.

Kevin, not only am I aware of the Didache Series, but we used the Understanding the Scriptures textbook as one of our supplements in my Biblical Studies classes, and my teacher was a member of Opus Dei, which publishes the series. Fantastic series. Unfortunately, the school won't be needing new textbooks for a few years.

William, I appreciate your candid banter. However, it is true that you can't have true compassion without orthodoxy. You also can't have mercy without truth, because mercy exists in order to reconcile, and to reconcile is to set people in a just, true relationship, either with other humans or with God. Now if God is Truth, and that is one of the implications of calling Christ the Word of God, the Logos, Wisdom, or many others of His appellations, then to receive His mercy means to be reconciled to Truth. Orthodox Catholics don't seek to exclude anyone, and I am sincerely sorry if you have met one, including myself, who may have made you feel excluded. Jesus Christ came to sinners, but His purpose was to share mercy with them and draw them into a relationship which would lead them to moral living. A friend of mine uses a quote attributed to a Rev. Francis Gray, "The ethic of inclusion in the gospels could be stated: You can come as you are and leave behind what you can, but you may not stay as you were or do as you will." Compassion and mercy are to reconcile us, and so God and all His servants, theologians, and catechists ought to go to those in need of His mercy and preach the truth, not in a haughty, holier-than-thou way, but in a way that calls to repentance and the unity which can only be found in Christ. This is why orthodox Catholics must preach Truth and must insist on the teachings of the Church, but some, including myself, often lack the tact required to do so without giving the wrong impression. Even excommunication is meant to teach and to reconcile, to get someone to realize the gravity of their actions. Whether it achieves that purpose these days is debatable, but that is its purpose. We believe that the Church has guarded the deposit of faith, as St. Paul instructed St. Timothy. We cannot believe anything aside from the Catholic faith, we cannot teach anything aside from the Catholic faith. We see a beauty and logic and truth in the Catholic faith that worldly wisdom cannot refute. So we preach, but our intention is (or should be) always to reconcile people to the truth we preach, not to condemn them. The problem we have with those who do not hold the orthodox faith is a concern that they attempt to reconcile without preaching the Truth to whom we ought to be reconciled. God bless you.

William, calling us fools is not only a cop-out, it's against the command of Christ, who said those who call others fools will report to Gehenna.

As regards yet another stereotype - that only newly practicing Catholics are orthodox - I can tell you that I am a cradle Catholic who has only twice missed a Sunday Mass (once when I had chicken pox and once just after a surgery), attended Catholic school (K-8), went to seminary, have a degree not only in theology but in catechetics, had enough devotion to learn Latin (I started 10 years ago and minored in it in college) and Biblical Greek (10 college credits), and I now teach Catholic theology after a couple years in ministry. Although always a practicing Catholic, I began becoming very involved in my faith in my freshman year of high school 10 years ago. I am not a newly practicing Catholic or a newly devout one.

James, you say that your views are based on when you grew up. When exactly was that? I mean, it's certainly true that orthodox Catholics are a small minority (only 4% of Catholics are estimated to use NFP, and that's considered a high estimate), but as an employee of the Church (and having been more or less employed by the Church or related organizations for the last 7 years), I have to say that the majority of those who are not orthodox are merely uncatechized (there was a huge decline in catechesis preceding and following the Second Vatican Council). When I explain to them what the Church teaches about this or that and why, many express a shocked interested and a desire to conform their lives to the Church's teaching.

I think that the general cultural upheaval of the mid-20th century probably led to the widespread acceptance of liberal Catholicism, but my generation is starting to realize that unmitigated freedom only brings slavery to selfishness and leads to a general displeasure with life. Furthermore, if you ask those who are young orthodox Catholics why they prefer to hold themselves to the standards of the Church over their own desires and "free-thought," the vast majority would agree with the sentiment that orthodoxy requires something of them and they like that. The brand of "Catholicism" advocated by theological progressives often removes the challenge of Christian life; sin and virtue are thought to be inconsequential. Catholic youth today mature to see that without the challenge Catholicism provides, the Gospel is empty of any meaning. Yes, orthodoxy is difficult, it does challenge us, it does make demands, but like any goal we wish to accomplish, the difficulty in becoming a saint (and that is the goal) is well worth the results, and the difficulty even becomes a blessing that is embraced. What is more Christian than following Christ in bearing our crosses in union with God, who is Truth?

Perhaps you should look into the Fellowship of Catholic University Students, which is experiencing exponential growth, or one of the many religious orders so full they have no more room for the young men and women pounding on their doors.

Anyway, arguing about numbers is a bit silly. Christ Himself said that the troubles to come would cause many to fall away. The small size of the orthodox minority can't be taken as proof against it.

My experiences coincide with Mr. Hanko's. I rarely see a Catholic church even anywhere close to empty, but then I've never had the blessing of living in the traditionally liberal "Catholic" parts of the country. What I can tell you is that when you examine the statistics of empty churches and monasteries, the change usually occurred when a theological liberal took over. On the other hand, people are filling the pews and becoming very actively involved in their faith where the bishops and priests are known for orthodoxy.

When was the last time YOU were in a Roman Catholic church? Not recently, from your remark. I go to mass nearly every Sunday, regardless of where in the country I am... and also when I travel in Central America. I can tell you from my experience that it is rare to not see the church full, often there are not enough seats. "They're empty" is hyperbolic nonsense.

Yes we pray for vocations, is that bad? No priests? Another absolute pronouncement of falsehood.

My problem with, and revulsion toward, liberal "Catholic" thinkers stems from their overboard, absolutist stands against their personal pet peeves in the catechism. Take an injustice, blow it out of proportion, dramatize it, demonize everyone and everything associated with it, and you are guaranteed to turn off the average faithful Catholic sitting in the pew. This, in many instances, was the "liberal intellectual" modus operandi, and what did it accomplish? Nothing, except the polarization of folks who ponder these ideas, such as what you see in this forum.

Why are there no great second generation "thinkers" in the mold of the people mentioned in the article? Easy, most of us left the 60's and 70's behind, we grew in experience and faith, we grew up. The wisdom of experience and maturity allows us to see the excesses, whining, liberal extremism of these so called intellectuals as another product of the "ME" generation. Instead of working for change reverently from the inside, they chose to attack from the outside. The arrogance of certitude that they display about their positions, the lack of humility in their behavior, precludes any possibility of their spiritual growth, or change of perspective. This attitude is not Catholic, it is self centered. All I can sat to these so called intellectuals is this: good riddance.

Equally revolting is the orthodox absolutism you mention in your last example, assuming the facts are ALL stated accurately. This sort of thing outrages and polarizes people. It is wrong, plain and simple, we all see that. To leave the Church, to walk away from your faith because of the injustice of others, however, is wrong. As Catholics, it is our duty to seek justice, while staying faithful, not to walk away, or choose another denomination, because it is easier. Progressives whine about hypocrisy. Who is the hypocrite, the person who makes a mistake and later repents, or the person who judges others, and leaves the Church without righting the injustice?

There are certainly issues which many Catholics have doubts about, or wish would change. That does not mean the doubters are right, or wrong, it means we are engaged, we are looking for truth. The mistake that the progressive "intellectual" thinkers make is assuming that the presence of doubts supports the extreme positions staked out by some of them.

Extremism is not justified, necessary, or truly Catholic. That said, no one said it is easy to follow the faith without misstep, doubt, or sacrifice.

Jesus Christ, the Eternal Logos and Holy Wisdom of God, the Truth Himself, became incarnate to dwell among human persons and lift them up to the truth that frees from the gravest of all threats to freedom: slavery to sin. That freedom, if embraced by society and lived out, would lead to a just society, but there is a reason St. Thomas More titled his work "Utopia" - "No Place." It will never happen in this life because we are a sinful people with a greater need of the truth than of social workers. The lack of that truth, not a lack of social work, is what keeps us from achieving a perfect society. Social work removed from the authentic teachings of Jesus Christ as passed on and defended by the Catholic Church is analogous to a Jesus Christ who is merely human. It is no surprise that liberation theologians so often under-emphasize Christ's divinity. Authentic charity cannot exist where separated from faith and hope, and these virtues come from above. Perhaps we should give Christianity a try for once.

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried." -G.K. Chesterton

Christian charity would be easier to try if we would not divorce it from the Truth which motivates it.

I am 29. The fact that you see Catholicism and feminism as being in any way compatible with feminism proves just how abysmal Catholic education was in the 1980s and 1990s.

Liberals delude themselves into thinking the Catholic Church is anything but reactionary. Perhaps they were on the right side of a few cases of the excesses of American Protestantism, but the Catholic Church is a very old and very conservative institution. They will not change and they do not care what you think about it.

I voted with my feet a long time ago. As are millions of other young people who were raised Catholic.

Micah,Thanks for your patient and lengthy responses here. It is amazing how it is impossible to say anything about the Catholic faith without having to engage in a total apologetics. Glad you are teaching religion in a Catholic high school. If you don't know it already, check out THE DIDACHE SERIES for your students.

Thank you for this Micah. I wouldn't want to have to swap Biblical quotations with you. As a cradle catholic from a traditional (and orthodox in your terms- at least in my grandparents' generation) family you can probably guess how well I know the Bible....;)

My issue with you is actually quite simple- and it does tie with the 'politics' of JP2 and Benedict- I think you are keeping huge numbers away from the sacraments who might otherwise be in church more frequently.

And you're doing this firstly with an insistence on holding the TRUTH that I can't find in my catechism (truth 'subsists' in the church as I understand it) and a much more vigorous insistence on 'morality' than 'forgiveness'- someone who tells me 'you can't have true compassion without orthodoxy' seems to me to have missed the point of the gospel.

As you are very clearly much more theologically educated than I am you can probably remember who said 'do not despair one of the thieves was saved, do not presume one of the thieves was damned'- but I think your version of the church- one where I do not feel welcome to light a candle to Joseph for family reasons or Anthony 'cause he's found my keys again- is not a service to Jesus.

@James BurtonI agree with everything you've said except what you said above about 'voting with your feet'- as my grandmother used to explain to me 'the church is your father and mother- you may disagree but you never leave.' It's up to us to make a catholic church suitable for humans- to misquote Jesus 'The church was made for man, not man for the church!!'

I am 29 years old. You do the math. I grew up badly catechized, then found out what the Church teaches about this or that and why and desired to conform my life to the Church's teaching.

Then I found out the hard way just how horrible that lifestyle really is. It IS like joining a cult.

Unless a woman is perfectly regular, NFP means a baby every year or two or no sex. Let me tell you, that does wonders for your relationship. Then what happens? Catholic school? If that is available, you probably won't be able to afford it for all those kids. So you have to homeschool, just like the fundamentalists. Of course it is easy for the men to talk about orthodoxy because it is the women who will bear children and make the whole thing work through their uncompensated labor.

I have two daughters. I could not raise them in an environment that sees them as second class persons. Although many individual Catholics do not believe this, the teachings of the Church itself are rather clear on the point, starting at the issue of women's ordination and continuing through though the teachings on sex and marriage. That is why I called Ms. Ivory delusional about her "Catholic feminism."

(BTW, why are Catholics homeschooling? Once upon a time, American Catholics built a tremendous social services infrastructure from schools to hospitals to children's homes. You would think these "orthodox" Catholics would be interested in restoring the Catholic culture, but the reality is that they think just like the "me-n-Jesus" evangelicals.)

Where I grew up, it was the conservative parish that was dying and the liberal parish that was growing. The conservative parish had a young priest who made sure all his orthodox t's were crossed and i's were dotted, yet he managed to offend many in the congregation when they didn't see things his way. The liberal parish (Franciscan: OFM) not only grew from these "refugees", but experienced explosive growth because they were the only parish who would minister to the growing Hispanic population, who Fr. Orthodox was too busy to bother with. Fr. Orthodox replaced Fr. I-Really-Didn't-Like-Vatican-II, under whose watch the decline started. I grew up in a small, conservative, Southern town, not a traditionally "liberal" or Catholic part of the country.

At college, I went to a large public university, albeit a relatively conservative one. Mass attendance was good, but it was still a small percentage of those who were raised Catholic. The parish was quite liberal at the time and usually quite full.

Small but growing. When I was in college at a very secular, very large institution, there were still 60-80 students who went to Mass every day of the week, adding to hundreds who attended weekly. I hear from my friends who are still there that the number has doubled in the last 4 years.

When I transferred to my next university, nearly 90% of the student body of 2300 went to daily Mass, and the vast majority of these folks were young lay people who intended to remain lay people (although that same university is seeing a comparatively large percentage of students entering religious orders). Now I teach high school theology and my schedule doesn't allow me to go to Mass everyday, but I remain a faithful orthodox Catholic young man, 25 years old, married 2 years with 2 children (14 months and 2 months). Whole religious orders are being fed by the fervor of this generation. You have only to look at the Franciscan Sisters of the Martyr St. George, the Franciscan Third Order Regular, the Dominicans of Nashville, the sisters at Our Lady of the Angels Monastery in Alabama, the Community of St. John, and any number of others. I also have friends sharing my age and mindset who have joined the Dominicans, the Benedictines, and the Carthusians. I'm still hoping one of them will decided against all reason to join the Jesuits and perhaps rise through the ranks enough to steer them away from the precipice.

A little addendum: a priest doesn't turn his back to the congregation in the Extraordinary Form so much as he spiritually and symbolically faces God to lead the people in prayer. At Mass, the priest is leading the congregation in worship and performing the miracle of the Consecration of the Eucharist. When he's teaching (readings, homily), it makes sense to face the people, but somehow it just doesn't seem it would have been so meaningful or impressive if Moses had faced the people he was standing in front of while parting the Red Sea. This is why Vatican II actually implicitly kept the priest facing ad orientem (the rubrics instruct the priest to turn and face the congregation, implying that he is not already facing them). Vatican II was very liturgically flexible; while setting this or that norm, it also granted wide and varied permissions to the contrary. How these permissions were abused is what disenfranchised so many young Catholics who felt they had been cheated out of authentically celebrated liturgy.

William, I wouldn't know first hand, since I'm not a Lefebvrist. What amazes me is that you only proved my point. Ms. Allen speaks for a number of liberal so-called Catholics in the United States who make the rather irrational assumption that anyone faithful to the Church's teachings or anyone who admires the Extraordinary Form of the Mass has something wrong with them.

Now I myself have attended the EF (Latin) Mass a total of about 5 times in my life, so your comment seems to be lacking insight into the reality of the current movement of orthodox Catholicism (the same thing Ms. Allen is lacking). Orthodox Catholicism means faithfulness to the Church's Magisterium in union with His Holiness Benedict XVI. It means faithfulness to the precepts of Vatican II interpreted with a hermeneutic of continuity with the apostolic faith handed down by the bishops throughout the Church's history. Lefebvrists don't generally hold up Pope Benedict as a hero or admire the teachings of Vatican II, and despite my naming our current pope as a hero, you think I belong to an organization that tends to stand against him? What folly! What an assumption! What a way to polarize your opponents!

No, I stand with the saints who upheld the Catholic faith, with the martyrs who died to defend it, and with the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, who declared the constant teaching of the Church.

@James BurtonI agree with everything you've said except what you said above about 'voting with your feet'- as my grandmother used to explain to me 'the church is your father and mother- you may disagree but you never leave.' It's up to us to make a catholic church suitable for humans- to misquote Jesus 'The church was made for man, not man for the church!!'

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.